From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga09.intel.com (mga09.intel.com [134.134.136.24]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3134CDE3 for ; Thu, 17 Jan 2019 12:55:57 +0100 (CET) X-Amp-Result: SKIPPED(no attachment in message) X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from fmsmga004.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.48]) by orsmga102.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 17 Jan 2019 03:55:57 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.56,488,1539673200"; d="scan'208";a="136563100" Received: from aburakov-mobl1.ger.corp.intel.com (HELO [10.237.220.54]) ([10.237.220.54]) by fmsmga004.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 17 Jan 2019 03:55:56 -0800 To: Bruce Richardson Cc: dev@dpdk.org References: <20190116124836.40132-1-bruce.richardson@intel.com> <20190117110022.GB289580@bricha3-MOBL.ger.corp.intel.com> From: "Burakov, Anatoly" Message-ID: <262b52ab-159f-fa08-ef71-f565264d1b8e@intel.com> Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2019 11:55:55 +0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20190117110022.GB289580@bricha3-MOBL.ger.corp.intel.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] eal: support strlcat function X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2019 11:55:58 -0000 On 17-Jan-19 11:00 AM, Bruce Richardson wrote: > On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 10:39:02AM +0000, Burakov, Anatoly wrote: >> On 16-Jan-19 12:48 PM, Bruce Richardson wrote: >>> Add the strlcat function to DPDK to exist alongside the strlcpy one. >>> While strncat is generally safe for use for concatenation, the API for >>> the strlcat function is perhaps a little nicer to use, and supports >>> truncation detection. >>> >>> See commit: 5364de644a4b ("eal: support strlcpy function") for more >>> details on the function selection logic, since we only should be using >>> the DPDK-provided version when no system-provided version is present. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Bruce Richardson --- >> >> <...> >> >>> static int test_string_fns(void) { if (test_rte_strsplit() < 0) >>> return -1; + if (test_rte_strlcat() < 0) + return -1; >>> return 0; } >>> >> >> Unrelated, but do we also need to test strlcpy, strscpy and other >> functions that were introduced? >> > > Yes, I think that would be advisable. I imagine the easiest way to test > them is to do as I have here in running comparisons with a range of inputs, > especially boundary conditions, against a known-good version for platforms > that have the functions built-in. > As always, volunteers and patches welcome... :-) /action hides > > /Bruce > -- Thanks, Anatoly